New paper: Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

[PyramidHead]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf

In short: the paper argues that the Fermi Paradox is the result of a misapplication of point estimates (basically numbers somewhere in the middle of a range of possibilities) for the various parameters of the Drake equation, resulting in estimates of the probability of life elsewhere in the galaxy/universe that are inflated by many orders of magnitude. The proper way to assign values to the Drake parameters, the authors argue, is to use ranges or probability distributions that most accurately represent the current degree of uncertainty regarding each one. Using this method, even with very conservative values entered into the equation there is a significantly high chance that we are truly alone in the observable universe. More stringent values bring the probability to 50/50.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm reassured.

I had previously assumed that our failure to spot signs of life elsewhere in the universe might have been because civilisations likely to evolve enough to become noticeable to us were also very likely to self-destruct before this could happen through all sorts of mechanisms inherent to the evolution of civilisations itself, like for example the mechanism by which our civilisation here is currently destroying its own environment.

So, we may be less likely to make friends, too bad, but we may also be less likely to inevitably self-destruct.

Still, if we're on our own then we don't know how likely civilisations tend to self-destruct. We will have to see how it pans out by going through the motions.

I wonder whether I'll sleep better tonight.
EB

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are only two values with a wide range of variability in that article--f_L and L. I find myself with some major disagreements with this.

1) We have one example of a planet developing life. The geologic record isn't accurate enough to even put a time between when the Earth became habitable to when it was inhabited. If the probability of life arising is actually very low then we were extremely lucky for it to have arisen so soon. Why should we think Earth is somehow unusual??

2) They assign a fairly narrow range for f_i, something that goes against the Rare Earths hypothesis. The basic idea behind Rare Earths is that most planets do not remain habitable long enough for intelligence to develop. Again, looking at Earth the data supports this notion--humanity just barely managed to beat the calendar. (99% of the time in which intelligence could arise has already passed. Soon the Earth will not be friendly to species such as ours.) My memory is that the Rare Earths hypothesis has made no attempt to actually assign values, they were just showing that there were many factors that will cause f_i to be small.

3) Note that the second wide-ranging variable is L. If we are alone because this is low then we won't be alone for long because we will be destroyed--almost certainly at our own hand.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm reassured.

I had previously assumed that our failure to spot signs of life elsewhere in the universe might have been because civilisations likely to evolve enough to become noticeable to us were also very likely to self-destruct before this could happen through all sorts of mechanisms inherent to the evolution of civilisations itself, like for example the mechanism by which our civilisation here is currently destroying its own environment.

So, we may be less likely to make friends, too bad, but we may also be less likely to inevitably self-destruct.

Still, if we're on our own then we don't know how likely civilisations tend to self-destruct. We will have to see how it pans out by going through the motions.

I wonder whether I'll sleep better tonight.
EB

That paper shouldn't make you sleep easy. Look at their model for L.

 

[Jokodo]

There are only two values with a wide range of variability in that article--f_L and L. I find myself with some major disagreements with this.

1) We have one example of a planet developing life. The geologic record isn't accurate enough to even put a time between when the Earth became habitable to when it was inhabited. If the probability of life arising is actually very low then we were extremely lucky for it to have arisen so soon. Why should we think Earth is somehow unusual??

Yes, that's an excellent argument. We don't know exactly how long it took on earth from when it became inhabitable to when it was inhabited, but we do know that it happened within, say, 300 million years.

That's exactly what you'd expect to find on any habitable planet if the probability is relatively high (where 1 in 100 million per year counts as high), but it's absolutely not what one would expect if the probability is much lower than that.

with 1/100M per year, the probabilities that a planet with suitable conditions is sterile are:
probability_of_sterile_planet year
0.36787943748353946 100000000
0.13533528052320543 200000000
0.04978706687055383 300000000
0.018315638154294704 400000000
0.00673794666135399 500000000
0.0024787520275729984 600000000
0.0009118819015647376 700000000
0.000335462600999056 800000000
0.00012340979295229776 900000000
4.539992521125137e-05 1000000000
1.6701698948509918e-05 1100000000
6.144211614197251e-06 1200000000
2.2603291124107148e-06 1300000000
8.315286024013218e-07 1400000000
3.0590227450287197e-07 1500000000
1.1253515666905182e-07 1600000000
4.139937013253277e-08 1700000000
1.5229976996529002e-08 1800000000
5.602795370370335e-09 1900000000

That is, 95% will have developed life by 300 million years.

If instead the probability is 1/billion per year, most suitable planets will still be inhabited after the first billion year, but the timing of the emergence will be more uniformly distributed, i. e. only half of the planets develop life within the first 700 million years:
0.9048374205497727 100000000
0.8187307576271662 200000000
0.7408182268561262 300000000
0.6703200534847535 400000000
0.6065306681379301 500000000
0.5488116452422549 600000000
0.49658531344867884 700000000
0.4493289741038029 800000000
0.4065696699063606 900000000
0.3678794513918439 1000000000
0.3328710938706615 1100000000
0.30119422195351064 1200000000
0.27253180287691026 1300000000
0.2465969735329226 1400000000
0.22313016944691025 1500000000
0.20189652696917598 1600000000
0.1826835326807468 1700000000
0.16529889648776705 1800000000
0.14956862711771501 1900000000

If the probability is even lower, many planets may not evolve life at all -- and for those who do, the timing of the emergence will be essentially randomly distributed over a planet's lifetime. There might still be plenty of planets with life, but there should be just as many where it evolved in its 5th billion years of existence as there are planets where it evolved within the first billion. Given these assumptions, the situation we find on Earth is rather unlikely -- a chance in the low single-digit percentage range, at best. Note that this is not a case of Observer Bias: We'd be just as able to have this discussion if we were living on a planet 8 billion years old where life only emerged after 4 billion years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the probability is even lower, many planets may not evolve life at all -- and for those who do, the timing of the emergence will be essentially randomly distributed over a planet's lifetime. There might still be plenty of planets with life, but there should be just as many where it evolved in its 5th billion years of existence as there are planets where it evolved within the first billion. Given these assumptions, the situation we find on Earth is rather unlikely -- a chance in the low single-digit percentage range, at best. Note that this is not a case of Observer Bias: We'd be just as able to have this discussion if we were living on a planet 8 billion years old where life only emerged after 4 billion years.

If the numbers were this bad there would be observer bias--because a planet such as ours wouldn't remain inhabitable for 8 billion years.

Where I suspect observer bias is f_I. We barely made the cutoff, that suggests that the average value might very well be higher than the time a planet remains suitable for intelligence.

 

[barbos]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf

In short: the paper argues that the Fermi Paradox is the result of a misapplication of point estimates (basically numbers somewhere in the middle of a range of possibilities) for the various parameters of the Drake equation, resulting in estimates of the probability of life elsewhere in the galaxy/universe that are inflated by many orders of magnitude. The proper way to assign values to the Drake parameters, the authors argue, is to use ranges or probability distributions that most accurately represent the current degree of uncertainty regarding each one. Using this method, even with very conservative values entered into the equation there is a significantly high chance that we are truly alone in the observable universe. More stringent values bring the probability to 50/50.

Wow, they had to publish that.

 

[Jokodo]

If the probability is even lower, many planets may not evolve life at all -- and for those who do, the timing of the emergence will be essentially randomly distributed over a planet's lifetime. There might still be plenty of planets with life, but there should be just as many where it evolved in its 5th billion years of existence as there are planets where it evolved within the first billion. Given these assumptions, the situation we find on Earth is rather unlikely -- a chance in the low single-digit percentage range, at best. Note that this is not a case of Observer Bias: We'd be just as able to have this discussion if we were living on a planet 8 billion years old where life only emerged after 4 billion years.

If the numbers were this bad there would be observer bias--because a planet such as ours wouldn't remain inhabitable for 8 billion years.

Maybe not a planet such as ours around a star such as ours, but a slightly larger planet (to ensure geological activity doesn't die off, assuming it's even essential) around a slightly smaller star can pull it off after 15 billion years too. A star's lifetime decreases proportional to the 3rd power for every increase in mass. This means a star with 0.7 solar masses (0.25 solar luminosities, but that just means the habitable zone will be half closer) lives about 3 times as long as the sun.

 

[rousseau]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf

In short: the paper argues that the Fermi Paradox is the result of a misapplication of point estimates (basically numbers somewhere in the middle of a range of possibilities) for the various parameters of the Drake equation, resulting in estimates of the probability of life elsewhere in the galaxy/universe that are inflated by many orders of magnitude. The proper way to assign values to the Drake parameters, the authors argue, is to use ranges or probability distributions that most accurately represent the current degree of uncertainty regarding each one. Using this method, even with very conservative values entered into the equation there is a significantly high chance that we are truly alone in the observable universe. More stringent values bring the probability to 50/50.

Wow, they had to publish that.

True or not, to me the more interesting question is who cares how much life there is in the universe? I think you could define this type of obsession as somewhat anthropocentric. If we can make an accurate calculation.. cool, but in practice what difference does it make? For one thing, we know now that life isn't exceptional and is just a material phenomenon of the universe.. so it is indisputably true that it exists elsewhere, or can exist elsewhere. And secondly.. we find life? So what? We make some cool scientific discovery and yet haven't figured out how to live on our own planet sustainably or not treat each other like shit yet.

Cool, life on another planet.. let's ask them what their political views are on gay people.

 

[Treedbear]

... And secondly.. we find life? So what? ...

Because this:

 

[barbos]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf

In short: the paper argues that the Fermi Paradox is the result of a misapplication of point estimates (basically numbers somewhere in the middle of a range of possibilities) for the various parameters of the Drake equation, resulting in estimates of the probability of life elsewhere in the galaxy/universe that are inflated by many orders of magnitude. The proper way to assign values to the Drake parameters, the authors argue, is to use ranges or probability distributions that most accurately represent the current degree of uncertainty regarding each one. Using this method, even with very conservative values entered into the equation there is a significantly high chance that we are truly alone in the observable universe. More stringent values bring the probability to 50/50.

Wow, they had to publish that.

True or not, to me the more interesting question is who cares how much life there is in the universe? I think you could define this type of obsession as somewhat anthropocentric. If we can make an accurate calculation.. cool, but in practice what difference does it make? For one thing, we know now that life isn't exceptional and is just a material phenomenon of the universe.. so it is indisputably true that it exists elsewhere, or can exist elsewhere. And secondly.. we find life? So what? We make some cool scientific discovery and yet haven't figured out how to live on our own planet sustainably or not treat each other like shit yet.

Cool, life on another planet.. let's ask them what their political views are on gay people.

Obviously these people care. I was just amused that they would publish such an obvious and already known "findings"

 

[Elixir]

Taking with a grain of salt. I'll fall back on a quote (Haldane IIRC):
"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

What we call intelligence may not be the only sort of "intelligence" in the universe, and the mechanisms (and associated time requirements) whereby intelligence arose on this planet may not be the same for every kind of intelligent being. And in the end, it matters little; what matters are the chances of ever having contact with another intelligence. I still consider the possibility vanishingly smal that it might occur within the blink of an eye that is the duration of the human species.

 

[braces_for_impact]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf

In short: the paper argues that the Fermi Paradox is the result of a misapplication of point estimates (basically numbers somewhere in the middle of a range of possibilities) for the various parameters of the Drake equation, resulting in estimates of the probability of life elsewhere in the galaxy/universe that are inflated by many orders of magnitude. The proper way to assign values to the Drake parameters, the authors argue, is to use ranges or probability distributions that most accurately represent the current degree of uncertainty regarding each one. Using this method, even with very conservative values entered into the equation there is a significantly high chance that we are truly alone in the observable universe. More stringent values bring the probability to 50/50.

Wow, they had to publish that.

True or not, to me the more interesting question is who cares how much life there is in the universe? I think you could define this type of obsession as somewhat anthropocentric. If we can make an accurate calculation.. cool, but in practice what difference does it make? For one thing, we know now that life isn't exceptional and is just a material phenomenon of the universe.. so it is indisputably true that it exists elsewhere, or can exist elsewhere. And secondly.. we find life? So what? We make some cool scientific discovery and yet haven't figured out how to live on our own planet sustainably or not treat each other like shit yet.

Cool, life on another planet.. let's ask them what their political views are on gay people.

Because it stirs the imagination, and where that begins we often end with useful technology, techniques, or knowledge? Most people consider life, especially intelligent life, precious on some level. Something to be fostered, maintained, encouraged, even revered. When I think about an entire universe full of billions of galaxies, all with billions of suns and countless planets, the thought that WE are the only intelligent life in ALL of that fills me with loneliness, but it also a certain awe.We may be it. Just us. I find the idea almost ludicrous, and even tragically ironic, but it may be true. If so, we are it. All the more reason to get our shit together and stop harming and killing the only intelligent life in the entire universe.

 

[rousseau]

True or not, to me the more interesting question is who cares how much life there is in the universe? I think you could define this type of obsession as somewhat anthropocentric. If we can make an accurate calculation.. cool, but in practice what difference does it make? For one thing, we know now that life isn't exceptional and is just a material phenomenon of the universe.. so it is indisputably true that it exists elsewhere, or can exist elsewhere. And secondly.. we find life? So what? We make some cool scientific discovery and yet haven't figured out how to live on our own planet sustainably or not treat each other like shit yet.

Cool, life on another planet.. let's ask them what their political views are on gay people.

Because it stirs the imagination, and where that begins we often end with useful technology, techniques, or knowledge? Most people consider life, especially intelligent life, precious on some level. Something to be fostered, maintained, encouraged, even revered. When I think about an entire universe full of billions of galaxies, all with billions of suns and countless planets, the thought that WE are the only intelligent life in ALL of that fills me with loneliness, but it also a certain awe.We may be it. Just us. I find the idea almost ludicrous, and even tragically ironic, but it may be true. If so, we are it. All the more reason to get our shit together and stop harming and killing the only intelligent life in the entire universe.

I can get behind this, I just don't like where the sentiment comes from. There is still a sense of self importance among us, that we're Gods and not just 'a part of the universe'. Even if people aren't religious we still can't seem to get over this sense that because we aren't monkeys, that we're extremely important, and that other 'intelligent' life is also just as important.

Yet in practice we're catty, underhanded, selfish, cruel, war creators, maybe we should be running from other intelligent life. Maybe the next real step isn't space, it's getting the fuck over ourselves and starting to make good decisions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the probability is even lower, many planets may not evolve life at all -- and for those who do, the timing of the emergence will be essentially randomly distributed over a planet's lifetime. There might still be plenty of planets with life, but there should be just as many where it evolved in its 5th billion years of existence as there are planets where it evolved within the first billion. Given these assumptions, the situation we find on Earth is rather unlikely -- a chance in the low single-digit percentage range, at best. Note that this is not a case of Observer Bias: We'd be just as able to have this discussion if we were living on a planet 8 billion years old where life only emerged after 4 billion years.

If the numbers were this bad there would be observer bias--because a planet such as ours wouldn't remain inhabitable for 8 billion years.

Maybe not a planet such as ours around a star such as ours, but a slightly larger planet (to ensure geological activity doesn't die off, assuming it's even essential) around a slightly smaller star can pull it off after 15 billion years too. A star's lifetime decreases proportional to the 3rd power for every increase in mass. This means a star with 0.7 solar masses (0.25 solar luminosities, but that just means the habitable zone will be half closer) lives about 3 times as long as the sun.

Earth's problem is the sun warming. So far Earth has kept the balance by reducing CO2 levels but that will only work for another 50 million years or so and then the Earth will warm. While that won't wipe out life it will favor small, rapidly-reproducing species that can evolve fast.

- - - Updated - - -

True or not, to me the more interesting question is who cares how much life there is in the universe? I think you could define this type of obsession as somewhat anthropocentric. If we can make an accurate calculation.. cool, but in practice what difference does it make? For one thing, we know now that life isn't exceptional and is just a material phenomenon of the universe.. so it is indisputably true that it exists elsewhere, or can exist elsewhere. And secondly.. we find life? So what? We make some cool scientific discovery and yet haven't figured out how to live on our own planet sustainably or not treat each other like shit yet.

Cool, life on another planet.. let's ask them what their political views are on gay people.

The thing is there's one term in that equation that is still relevant to us, L.

If we can't find aliens but it's easy for intelligence to evolve we can conclude that we are in extreme danger of destruction at our own hands in some fashion. (Not necessarily by war.)

 

[braces_for_impact]

True or not, to me the more interesting question is who cares how much life there is in the universe? I think you could define this type of obsession as somewhat anthropocentric. If we can make an accurate calculation.. cool, but in practice what difference does it make? For one thing, we know now that life isn't exceptional and is just a material phenomenon of the universe.. so it is indisputably true that it exists elsewhere, or can exist elsewhere. And secondly.. we find life? So what? We make some cool scientific discovery and yet haven't figured out how to live on our own planet sustainably or not treat each other like shit yet.

Cool, life on another planet.. let's ask them what their political views are on gay people.

Because it stirs the imagination, and where that begins we often end with useful technology, techniques, or knowledge? Most people consider life, especially intelligent life, precious on some level. Something to be fostered, maintained, encouraged, even revered. When I think about an entire universe full of billions of galaxies, all with billions of suns and countless planets, the thought that WE are the only intelligent life in ALL of that fills me with loneliness, but it also a certain awe.We may be it. Just us. I find the idea almost ludicrous, and even tragically ironic, but it may be true. If so, we are it. All the more reason to get our shit together and stop harming and killing the only intelligent life in the entire universe.

I can get behind this, I just don't like where the sentiment comes from. There is still a sense of self importance among us, that we're Gods and not just 'a part of the universe'. Even if people aren't religious we still can't seem to get over this sense that because we aren't monkeys, that we're extremely important, and that other 'intelligent' life is also just as important.

Yet in practice we're catty, underhanded, selfish, cruel, war creators, maybe we should be running from other intelligent life. Maybe the next real step isn't space, it's getting the fuck over ourselves and starting to make good decisions.

That is kind of what I meant by tragically ironic. Imagine the entire universe. There's one intelligent species with the capacity to understand at least to a degree, the universe they inhabit, and it's...us. Perhaps it should have been another species, one more..."worthy", I guess.

 

[Jokodo]

Maybe not a planet such as ours around a star such as ours, but a slightly larger planet (to ensure geological activity doesn't die off, assuming it's even essential) around a slightly smaller star can pull it off after 15 billion years too. A star's lifetime decreases proportional to the 3rd power for every increase in mass. This means a star with 0.7 solar masses (0.25 solar luminosities, but that just means the habitable zone will be half closer) lives about 3 times as long as the sun.

Earth's problem is the sun warming. So far Earth has kept the balance by reducing CO2 levels but that will only work for another 50 million years or so and then the Earth will warm. While that won't wipe out life it will favor small, rapidly-reproducing species that can evolve fast.

Yeah, so? A planet whose sun develops three times slower has about three times the time for all of that -- and a star whose habitable zone is half way in is already such a sun, no need for super-close, tidally locked orbits and all the complications they bring.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Other intelligent species have been watching us evolve. Waiting for the right time to contact... Right now they see President Trump and think, "woohoo, he's just like our Dictator." So, any day, they will come out of hiding in space for a sit-down Boss2Boss meeting. That must be why Trump wants the Space Force. It's leverage.

 

[Underseer]

I'm reassured.

I had previously assumed that our failure to spot signs of life elsewhere in the universe might have been because civilisations likely to evolve enough to become noticeable to us were also very likely to self-destruct before this could happen through all sorts of mechanisms inherent to the evolution of civilisations itself, like for example the mechanism by which our civilisation here is currently destroying its own environment.

So, we may be less likely to make friends, too bad, but we may also be less likely to inevitably self-destruct.

Still, if we're on our own then we don't know how likely civilisations tend to self-destruct. We will have to see how it pans out by going through the motions.

I wonder whether I'll sleep better tonight.
EB

There were always many possible resolutions to the Fermi paradox.

Anyway, no discussion of Fermi's paradox is complete without mentioning a joke/observation from the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson.

[ent]ldquo[/ent]Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.[ent]rdquo[/ent]
[ent]mdash[/ent]Bill Watterson

 

[Angry Floof]

True or not, to me the more interesting question is who cares how much life there is in the universe?

People of curiosity who seek out things that expand our understanding and sense of awe. Why do we make art?

I think you could define this type of obsession as somewhat anthropocentric.

What other "-centric" could it be? Anyway, what other human endeavors so profoundly challenge our anthropocentricity?

If we can make an accurate calculation.. cool, but in practice what difference does it make? For one thing, we know now that life isn't exceptional and is just a material phenomenon of the universe.. so it is indisputably true that it exists elsewhere, or can exist elsewhere. And secondly.. we find life? So what? We make some cool scientific discovery and yet haven't figured out how to live on our own planet sustainably or not treat each other like shit yet.

Cool, life on another planet.. let's ask them what their political views are on gay people.

What a small, cynical view. Humanity is clearly driven to explore just as we're driven to make art. That itself is a mystery worth exploring whether there's even an answer to be had or not. The human drive to solve puzzles can lead a person to not only great discoveries but a sort of personal ecstasy. Newton didn't collapse into transcendent bliss from crabbing about gay issues. He solved the puzzle of our strange and complex solar system, pretty much all by himself! Why? Who fucking knows. It's how we operate. At least, some of us. And that doesn't even begin to touch on what can be created by these strange human drives in large groups.

 

[rousseau]

People of curiosity who seek out things that expand our understanding and sense of awe. Why do we make art?

What other "-centric" could it be? Anyway, what other human endeavors so profoundly challenge our anthropocentricity?

If we can make an accurate calculation.. cool, but in practice what difference does it make? For one thing, we know now that life isn't exceptional and is just a material phenomenon of the universe.. so it is indisputably true that it exists elsewhere, or can exist elsewhere. And secondly.. we find life? So what? We make some cool scientific discovery and yet haven't figured out how to live on our own planet sustainably or not treat each other like shit yet.

Cool, life on another planet.. let's ask them what their political views are on gay people.

What a small, cynical view. Humanity is clearly driven to explore just as we're driven to make art. That itself is a mystery worth exploring whether there's even an answer to be had or not. The human drive to solve puzzles can lead a person to not only great discoveries but a sort of personal ecstasy. Newton didn't collapse into transcendent bliss from crabbing about gay issues. He solved the puzzle of our strange and complex solar system, pretty much all by himself! Why? Who fucking knows. It's how we operate. At least, some of us. And that doesn't even begin to touch on what can be created by these strange human drives in large groups.

True or not, to me the more interesting question is who cares how much life there is in the universe? I think you could define this type of obsession as somewhat anthropocentric. If we can make an accurate calculation.. cool, but in practice what difference does it make? For one thing, we know now that life isn't exceptional and is just a material phenomenon of the universe.. so it is indisputably true that it exists elsewhere, or can exist elsewhere. And secondly.. we find life? So what? We make some cool scientific discovery and yet haven't figured out how to live on our own planet sustainably or not treat each other like shit yet.

Cool, life on another planet.. let's ask them what their political views are on gay people.

Because it stirs the imagination, and where that begins we often end with useful technology, techniques, or knowledge? Most people consider life, especially intelligent life, precious on some level. Something to be fostered, maintained, encouraged, even revered. When I think about an entire universe full of billions of galaxies, all with billions of suns and countless planets, the thought that WE are the only intelligent life in ALL of that fills me with loneliness, but it also a certain awe.We may be it. Just us. I find the idea almost ludicrous, and even tragically ironic, but it may be true. If so, we are it. All the more reason to get our shit together and stop harming and killing the only intelligent life in the entire universe.

I can get behind this, I just don't like where the sentiment comes from. There is still a sense of self importance among us, that we're Gods and not just 'a part of the universe'. Even if people aren't religious we still can't seem to get over this sense that because we aren't monkeys, that we're extremely important, and that other 'intelligent' life is also just as important.

Yet in practice we're catty, underhanded, selfish, cruel, war creators, maybe we should be running from other intelligent life. Maybe the next real step isn't space, it's getting the fuck over ourselves and starting to make good decisions.

This pretty much covers my thoughts on it.

Curiosity about the universe for it's own sake? Awesome. Curiosity about the universe because we think we're so important that we just have to find others like us and impregnate every piece of habitable land we can get our hands on? Na.

I'm just tired of the ego-mania among us, and I think a lot of the obsession about life/space/colonization etc will be laughed at by future generations as we completely failed to deal with the real problems on our own planet.

Small view? Sure, maybe. Will this kind of thing ever change? Probably not. But that's my frustration with it anyway.